J Street does not promote anti-Israel speakers
I was saddened by Barry Gustin’s letter (“J Street is no AIPAC,” March 28) in which he claims that op-ed columnist Arthur Slepian was “dishonest and disingenuous” for suggesting there is common ground shared by the two pro-Israel organizations (“J Street and AIPAC speak the same language on Israel,” March 21). While there are indeed differences between the two groups, the suggestion that J Street promotes “speakers … who are blatantly anti-Israel” is patently false.
At recent J Street town hall events across the country, two prominent Israelis were featured at multiple venues — Danny Yatom and Ami Ayalon — both avidly supporting John Kerry’s efforts to help forge peace based on a two-state solution, and both enthusiastically endorsing J Street’s support of that goal.
Does Gustin suggest that Ayalon and Yatom are “blatantly anti-Israel” for their support of J Street? He might consider their pedigree: Both are sabras who have devoted their lives to ensuring Israel’s security. Ami Ayalon served as the decorated commander of Israel’s navy and as chief of Israel’s security service, the Shin Bet. Danny Yatom served as a major general in the IDF and as head of Israel’s Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations — the Mossad. In his ardor to defend Israel, Gustin should listen to Israelis like Ayalon and Yatom.
Michael J. Cooper | Lafayette
Only AIPAC speaks language of Israel
Contrary to Arthur Slepian’s opinion article (March 21), I don’t think that “J Street and AIPAC speak the same language on Israel.” Here are just some of the major differences between these two groups.
First, AIPAC believes that the Israelis know better what is good for them, while J Street believes that its members know exactly what is good for Israel.
Second, AIPAC, by its mission of strengthening the U.S.-Israel relationship, has been successfully working with the governments of all stripes, in both countries. Meanwhile, the left-oriented J Street is limited to cooperating just with a left-of-center Israeli government and Democratic administration, with all other parties deserving at best criticism and at worst vilification.
Third, in the current state of affairs, AIPAC considers Iranian nuclear advances as the existential threat to Israel. As for J Street, they still are holding fast to the holy grail of peace talks with Palestinians, who so far have “reciprocated” the Israeli withdrawals by installing Hamas in Gaza and spreading vile anti-Semitism and incitement. So much for AIPAC and J Street speaking “the same language.”
Vladimir Kaplan | San Mateo
Rebuttal to the rebuttal
Please allow me to correct Paul Drexler’s rebuttal letter (“Equating questions with blackmail?” March 28), where he took my sentence “conditional support … short of a veiled blackmail” out of context and combined it with his interpretations to construct his argument.
The correct context of this sentence has nothing to do with questioning or criticizing Israel’s policies, or arguing Israel’s government electorate base or ideology, but with characterizing certain U.S. Jewry groups’ questionable claims of being supportive of Israel.
For example, Jewish Voice for Peace is hardly an Israel supporter when it promotes the nefarious BDS campaign against Israel. Similarly, J Street coins itself as “pro-Israel, pro-peace,” yet supports the U.S. administration’s coercive Mideast “framework agreement” rather than Israel government policy. Further, J Street has the temerity to support the Palestinians’ refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. These are clearly cases of “conditional support” that are nothing short of veiled blackmail.
Sam Liron | Foster City
One-sided pressure
For the past 30 years, Presidents Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush and Obama have sought a two-state solution to create the first Palestinian state, and so far failed. Secretary of State John Kerry has exerted unprecedented pressure on Israel to make concessions, including the release from prison of Palestinian terrorists. There is no sign that the U.S. has put equal pressure for concessions on the Palestinians. The majority of Israelis expect the present negotiations to fail, because Palestinian actions for the past 30 years show that the goal of Fatah and Hamas is the destruction of Israel, even if that precludes having a Palestinian state.
Caroline Glick, the author of “The Israeli Solution,” has proposed a one-state solution, of course without any right of return, which has been demanded by the Palestinians. Congratulations to her. It is well overdue to look at new ideas, think out of the box and consider all possible solutions.
Norman G. Licht | San Mateo
Is our safe haven a crime?
As an Israeli teen living in America, I was saddened by J.’s article “Arab League rejects Israel as Jewish state” (March 14). My great-grandparents escaped the Holocaust to go to Israel, the place where they would be safe with other Jews. In the 21st century, is it still too much of a crime for the Jewish people to have a safe haven?
The Arab League has forgotten that it is in the middle of peace talks. Don’t the Palestinians want to have a recognized country just the same? At my school’s political debate club, I hear remarks like those of the Arab League made every week, bemoaning the existence of the sole Jewish country, which “is already so surrounded by Muslim countries that it might as well just give up.” For the preservation of a cultural identity rooted in a Jewish homeland and the strength to combat anti-Semitism, Israel must be recognized as a Jewish state.
Noa Levin | San Jose
Israel can trust only itself
Elijah Jatovsky (“When will AIPAC start cheering for peace?” March 14) claims to be a strong supporter of Israel in his op-ed, yet he fails to understand that the world does not really care about the fate of Israel and the Jewish people.
Jatovsky’s contention that Israeli leaders should trust the Americans and the Palestinians is ridiculous. Israel cannot rely on anyone else to provide her security.
Israel evacuated the Sinai Peninsula in 1956 with assurances from President Eisenhower that Israel could use the Suez Canal. Didn’t happen! The United Nations peacekeepers in Lebanon are spectators when Hezbollah shoots rockets into Israel or kidnaps soldiers. In 1982, Ronald Reagan pulled out the Marines from Beirut when 240 were killed by Hezbollah.
Only a fool would place the security of his home in the hands of John Kerry and Mahmoud Abbas. The Palestinians should have a state, but not at the expense of Israel. If Israel will not have peace, at least she needs security. Pieces of paper and kind words from our president are not enough.
Jatovsky is too young to remember the signing of the agreement between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin in 1993. That charade cost over 1,000 Israeli lives. How many more can we afford to lose by appeasement?
Gil Stein | Aptos